Farewell

This is my last post with school starting up tomorrow. I would just like to leave you with some wisdom. I do not know too many people who thought Hillary was not going to win the Election. I also know a lot of people who did not predict the Stock Market to have such a terrible start. Others speak of a recession. As the year continues, may I ask that you not only keep in mind why you are voting for a specific candidate, but that this individual will impact you greatly. It is not a time where the president does not matter, this election can make or break America for the next 10 or so years!

Statistics Anyone?

OK, as everyone knows the BIG Iowa results came through. And yes, many people became new fans in Obama and Huckabee. But it is only Iowa some may feel. Iowa currently is responsible for 7 electoral votes. Yep a huge SEVEN votes out of the 538 votes. For the mathy people out there, yes Iowas is equal to 1.3% out of the entire process, and would aid a candidate with 2.59% of the electoral votes they would need to become president. So yes, the question definitely needs to be, how can such a small percentage of Americans, have such a huge influence? Especially as Mr. Silton pointed out, one primarily composed of whites. They should not in my opinion. I do not care who wins the Iowa caucus, but the people who fund campaigns do! And unlike the 60 or so of us who study government, many Americans vote based on not wanting to choose the losing presidential candidate. So that is how Iowa gains its power.

Do you think it is fair, I sure don't. PS, New Hampshire will bring 4 electoral votes to which ever president the state decides to vote for. Yep a staggering .7% of the electoral college and they are almost as influential as Iowa.

Recess is in Session?

Not my best play on words, but it is alright. This being an election year, investors are counting their fingers waiting to see who gets elected and how they will effect the overall economy. According to CNBC, today their were not to many fears of an upcoming recession. However, in my opinion would a market channel publicly announce that "A recession is coming" blatantly, just as the colonists yelled the "British are coming" to prepare? If any report gave news that they were confident of an upcoming recession, a reliable report of course, not only would billions of dollars be lost through investors taking out their money, but come on, even the news site would lose viewers/readers as Americans would not want to spend their money! (A little drastic)

If anyone wants to hear what the Trillion Dollar Survey reported on CNBC, check out this link. It is a collection of the nation's top money managers, investment strategists and professional economists.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/22486170

Bushy on Vacation

Did Bush shoot himself in the foot vetoing a military policy? Bush vetoed the bill because "of an obscure provision that could expose the new Iraqi government to billions of dollars in legal claims dating to Saddam Hussein's rule." Bush is now being accused of supporting troops in the past, and now not. But, is it fair? We learned in class how little provisions sneak into bills. This veto does not reflect Bush vetoing the entire bill, he is just upset at congress for trying to slide in a certain provision and therefore was forced to veto the entire bill.

The main question: How often are politicians misrepresented for voting against a bill because of one little provision? And how badly does it effect their profile? From this, it seems pretty bad to upset not just your opposing party but members of your own party as well!

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/30/africa/veto.php

Religion in Politics

Back in the 1960 presidential election Kennedy's religion came into play, as he would (and was) be the first Catholic president. Kennedy commented on his religion by saying, "a candidate's "views on religion are his own, private affair," which should not be "imposed by him upon the nation." "He promised, in essence, that his Catholicism would no more influence his politics than did Quakerism for Richard Nixon. And President Dwight Eisenhower's reaction to the Kennedy speech summarized this argument well: "I would hope that it [religion] could be one of those subjects that could be laid on the shelf and forgotten."

Today, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is taking the opposing viewpoint of Kennedy. If he were to be elected, he would be the first Mormon president. He made a speech today saying, "Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people... religion is not merely 'a private affair.'"

He did agree that, "no authorities of my church . . . will ever exert influence on presidential decisions."

Romney seems to be getting a lot of press recently. Even if this is just another excuse for him to get publicity, do you all agree with his statements?... How much of a role should one's personal religious beliefs play in their policies?

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR2007120601968.html

Political Relationships

I was watching a program on the History Channel about the Kennedy family, and during the show they talked about how the Kennedys were criticized in elections for using their family connections to get places in politics.

Whether this criticism is warranted is up to you, but how much do family connections, or connections in general, play into politics? Do those who know other have a natural advantage? The answer to this is of course so, but does it give an unfair advantage to other candidates? Is it skill or connections that matter most?

For example, Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate people felt that she used her husband as a way to win the election, and same could be true with her candidacy today.

Does someone without political connections even have a shot at winning an election today?

Facebook and Politics

I don't know how many of you have Facebooks, but I'm sure it's quite of few of you. If you do have one you know about the different groups there are to join. There are a significant number of new groups aimed towards political values. There are some such as "Stop Global Warming," "Americans for Alternative Energy," "Support Stem Cell Research," etc.

I also thought it was interesting that there are campaign groups for candidates running for president in 2008. There are some joke groups, such as "Colbert for President," or "Stewart/Colbert '08," but there are also some serious ones. I joined "California Students for Barack Obama," and I've received e-mails, messages, and invitations to phone banks and get- togethers to help Barack Obama. There was even essay competition in which the winner got to read there essay at an Obama event. (There are also other groups such as "Romney 2008," "Congressman Ron Paul for President 2008," "America's Mayor, America's President. Giuliani 2008," etc.)

Although there are thousands of students joining groups like these, do they really have any affect on the election, or is all of this work for nothing? What do you think of political groups on Facebook?

It seems like even if the candidate doesn't win, it's a great way to become involved in politics, network, and organize. It's also interesting that Obama's campaign is so organized, being that the Democrats are often critisized for lack of organizational skills.